"A Bibliographical Study of César-Pierre Richelet": A Response

"A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF CÉSAR-PIERRE RICHELET": A RESPONSE LAURENT BRAY The review of my thesis (César-Pierre Richelet [1626-1698] Biographie et oeuvre lexicographique) in the 1987 issue of your journal (220-21) calls for a reply. It is in my opinion an unfair misrepresentation of my book. Your reviewer blames me for an "analysis . . . done ... in a superficial way" (220)—but my thesis is by no means an "analysis"! Here are a few examples: "The biggest weaknesses"—says your reviewer about my book—"come in the analysis of Richelet's major dictionary, where we gain little understanding of the work itself . . . ." But the "analysis" your reviewer refers to does not exist in my book; it has never been the aim of my work. In my preface (did he read it?) I explicitly say: "Une étude bibliographique critique préparatoire à l'analyse métalexicographique de l'oeuvre de Richelet s'avérait nécessaire et urgente. C'est à cette bibliographie critique que nous nous sommes essayés ici" (vi), which substantially means that the book does not intend to be the metalexicographical analysis your reviewer is looking for but rather the bibliographical groundwork necessary before a metalexicographical analysis of Richelet's work is possible. Furthermore, I also write: "il nous a semblé préférable de la présenter [Richelet's bibliography] dans son détail plutôt que de nous atteler à la hâte à l'analyse d'un domaine mal défini" (8) (which can be translated as follows: It seemed preferable to present a detailed bibliography of Richelet's work instead of analysing an as yet ill-defined domain). In my opinion these two statements should have been explicit enough. That was my mistake. But let us continue. Ill 112A Bibliographical Study of Richelet Your reviewer then writes: "All too often what passes for analysis of old dictionaries is a comparison of a very limited range of one dictionary's articles with those of another ..." (221). I wonder in whose eyes these comparisons would pass as analyses. As far as I am concerned, I explicitly say that the comparisons one finds in my work are "des sondages dont la représentativité reste relative" (31) (samples the representativeness of which is relative). And your reviewer goes on: "Bray's book is filled with such comparisons." In fact only 6 of the 335 pages of my book are "filled with such comparisons." What your author is offering here is not a review but a misrepresentation of what I have written. I think your readers should know this. Our reviewer has declined to comment on Professor Bray's response. Ed. ...